If you were not in the race, do you think Lamont would not win easily? But it is you that are "divisive". You have kissed up to the enemy, literally. You have befriended more Repubicans than Democrats. And you want people to believe that you are "bi-partisan" and doing what is best for the country and "doing what you think is right". Well, you have been proven wrong. Your judgement is way off target. You made a blunder and stuck with it after all the facts had hit you in the face. You cannot accept reality. And the other reality is that you were fired. Get it, Joe?

He wouldn't have challeneged Lieberman in the primary. After all, he new he couldn't beat Lieberman in the general election. That's why he kept trying to get Lieberman to pledge to support the winner of the primary. But not only did Lieberman decline to do that, he announced he'd run in the general election regardless of the primary results. So Lamont was faced with a choice -- continue with his primary campaign, knowing that even if we won, it would be followed by a bloody general election contest that he'd probably lose anyway, and which would take critical attention away from Democratic efforts to regain control of Congress.

But Lamont pressed on. He and his supporters believe that defeating Lieberman in the primary was more important than retaking control of Congress. So please, don't give me any lectures on party unity and "taking one for the team." The Lamont campaign doesn't even believe that crap.

The rules say if you win the primary of your Party, then you are the candidate in the General Election. Joe always knew he had enough Republicans on his side to win the General. he never anticipated a challenge in a primary. To suggest that to challenge a candidate in a primary is divisive is ridiculous.

"Joementum on the other hand should be ashamed of himself for disregarding the will of the voters."

Lieberman is *ahead* in the polls. It appears that the will of the voters of Connecticut is that he remain their Senator, although that's far from a foregone conclusion.

The thing that the voters in the Democratic primary were expressing their will about was who was to be the Democratic candidate, not who was to be the Senator. Joseph Lieberman respected their will completely - he's not running as a Democrat.

The idea that one side can divide the party without the aid of the other strikes me as an odd one, but I don't see how you can attach more blame to Lieberman's supporters than to Lamont, given that Lieberman is only doing the will of the voters - given that the majority of them are planning to *vote* for him, clearly the majority wanted him to run.

So I look at the issue slightly differently - I don't feel any party loyalty whatsoever to any group; the two standards I'm judging by are

1) is this good for the cause of left-wing politics in America, irrespective of party.

2) is this acceptable behaviour for a politician - is it "playing fair"?

I think that Lieberman unquestionably did the wrong thing from point of view 1) by even standing against Lamont in the primary - Lamont is the more progressive of the two, although by less than most DUers appear to believe - but that he has done less wrong in that respect than any Republican.

I don't, however, think that he's done anything wrong from POV 2) - he's under no moral obligation of any kind not to run as an independent, given that the voters want him to.

However, given that Lieberman existed and was running, I think that Lamont also did the wrong thing from POV 1) by running against him - by doing so, he's made it likely that the Senator for Connecticut will be Lieberman(I) than Lieberman(D), which is bad. He *obviously* hasn't done anything wrong from POV 2).

I don't think either man has in any way "broken the rules of the game" or acted dishonourably.

I *do* think that those people who hold Democratic offices connected to campaigning in Connecticut but are supporting Lieberman have behaved badly from POV 2). I think that unless and until you split officially from a political party you have an obligation to toe its line to some extent. Lieberman has done so, and that's fine, but people who hold offices relevant to the Connecticut senate under Democratic auspices but are not endorsing the Democratic candidate are not fullfilling the trust the Democratic party placed in them when it selected them, which is wrong under POV 2).

in principle, Lieberman (or anyone) has the right to run as a third-party or independent candidate. (Just as people have the right to run as Tories or Republicans - it doesn't mean that I support their candidacy!) I don't think that in itself is wrong. Maybe it's because in the UK there seems to be far more of a tradition of smaller-party and independent candidacies, but I take it for granted that such parties will stand, and that it's generally good for democracy to allow them to do so (well, not when it's the fascist British National Party!). I wish that Lieberman would not run on this occasion; but one can't say that he has no right to do so, without also denying the right to Ken Livingstone and others whose independent candidacies have served a useful purpose, e.g. reducing the political power of Tony Blair et al.

What shocks me, if I'm getting the story correctly, is something rather different. It is the involvement of national Republican leaders in the campaign. I feel rather strongly that in any case, national party leaders should not get involved in the selection or de-selection of candidates by local and state parties. (Our leaders have attempted it from time to time, and I don't like it!) This puts too much power in the already-too-powerful hands of party leaders, and may allow them to get rid of inconvenient rebels. And this is even when they get involved in the selection of candidates of their own parties - let alone other parties! I have seen many arrogant actions by elected-dictator party leaders over the years, but I don't think I've ever come across leaders who would essentially dump their *own* party's duly selected candidate, because they've discovered that somebody who was de-selected by the opposition party wants to continue as a candidate and may have a better chance of winning. This is amazingly unwarranted interference with both the local Democrats' choice, and also the local Republicans' choice. Any chance of the 'real' Republican candidate putting in a complaint about this - and thus hopefully embarrassing the right-wing even further?

By the way, I certainly hope Lieberman loses! He reminds me strongly of Tony the Poodle; and very likely that is why the race has received some publicity in the UK.

Not my election of course; but we are far more affected by what goes on in America now than we ever have been.

"Like many of you, I am fed up with the partisanship and polarization that is blocking us from addressing the issues that matter most to Connecticut families. And that is precisely why I am continuing my campaign for re-election to the U.S. Senate as an independent Democrat ."

Even if he werent' trying to steal the mantle of the Democratic nomination, if he were truly an independent he should have ceded the primary to Lamont and went right to the GE.

Hey the rules are quite simple. Fight like hell against each other in the primary, fight together in the general election. Them's the rules. Those that don't follow that second part are the ones being divisive.

...Lamont enters the primary. Lieberman demonstrates his contempt for the process by refusing to commit to support the winner of the primary. Therefore Lamont should drop out of the race because he is being "divisive". Does that about cover it? By your reasoning, no challenger in a primary could ever win: all the incumbent has to do is say "hell no, I won't support the winner". Then the challenger will have no choice but to step down, or risk being labelled "divisive".

That is exactly, *exactly* the kind of reasoning that got us where we are today. Let the bullies frame the argument and cower because they might not like you or something if you stand up to them. Personally I am sick to death of weak kneed lily livered "hurt me" Democrats. I want one with backbone who will stand up to the Beltway bullies. From what I see, we have that in Ned Lamont. More power to him, I hope Joe goes down in flames, and Lamont goes to the Senate.

16. Just don't pretend that Lamont has no responsibility for the consequences

of his actions.

Lamont and his supporters have no right to claim they were surprised at Lieberman's decision to run as an independent, or that Lieberman isn't playing fair. Lieberman has every right to disregard the primary results and run as an independent, just as Lamont had every right to disregard the party convention's endorsement of Lieberman and contest the nomination in a primary. Moreover, Lieberman announced well in advance of the primary that he would do so.

The fact is that Lamont made the decision to press on, knowing full well that it could result in a bitter, divisive battle with Lieberman that would stretch on until November, and that in the end, Lieberman (who has always enjoyed solid support from independent and Republican voters) could get reelected without his party's backing. Perhaps Lamont felt the decision was justified. Perhaps he felt that defeating Lieberman in the primary was more important than avoiding the inevitable fall out and the possible harm to the party's chances of retaking the Senate and the House in the fall.

Fine. But Lamont ought to at least be a man about it, rather than pretend he had nothing to do with it.

...sucking up to the Bush regime? You're okay with him actually pushing the continued occupation of Iraq? You don't think that Lamont had any reasons for challenging other than wanting to be "divisive"?

And what about the Democratic voters of the state of Connecticut, who given the choice, endorsed Lamont? I guess you buy Lieberman's argument that he needs to "save the Democratic party from itself"???

I'm amazed, really quite amazed at that viewpoint. But we can agree to disagree, and yes, he would be better than any Republican if it came to that. I just hope it doesn't, and that Ned Lamont is the next Senator from the state of Connecticut.

If no one should challenge incumbents for the sake of "party unity," why have primaries?

If challengers shouldn't enter a race because the incumbent threatens to run as an indy, why have primaries?

Just shitcan them, then we can all vote for the incumbents. Heck, while we're at it we may as well cancel elections and let all incumbents keep their seats for life. Then we'd have terrific party unity!

welp, guess I'll have to vote for the Green candidate in the next election if I have no voice in this party...

Guess what, the Democratic party exists to serve the Democratic base and not to rubber stamp the legitimacy of every incumbent. We, the base, can choose whomever we want to represent us in the GE. And choosing someone other than the incumbent doesn't give that incumbent license to run as a sore loser independent.

What do you think about the Ed Case vs. Daniel Akaka race. I don't hear you condemning conservative Ed Case's challenge to liberal Akaka.

...we can always rely on to come charging in to defend Joe and the DLC. Thanks for fullfilling that role dolstein.

As for Joe, Joe doesn't care. Every statement dolstein made could be turned back on Lieberman with ease, and with a fundamental difference. If the democratic primary voters of Conneticut rejected Joe, and now Joe is panhandling for Republicans, why should he be permitted to retain seniority in chair positions in the Democratic party? He spouts right-wing talking points, attacks other democrats, and has his proxies out referring to the "nutroots" and doing the bidding of the GOP. Sorry, but Joe and his supporters have shown their true colors. Why are they even bothering to make posts on a place called "Democratic Underground" when they have rejected the Democratic Party and embraced the GOP?

It feels like Groundhog Day. We set the clock to midnight, we start all over again as of Wednesday morning after primary day. Look, I started out this race seven or eight months ago, I was an asterisk in the polls and I think we're right now within striking distance. I feel like it's very competitive. I feel like the people of Connecticut voted last Tuesday for real change and they are going to vote again for real change in November.

BLITZER: Now you want him to step aside. Is that right?

***********LAMONT: That's a decision only the senator can make. I got into this primary and said I am going to play by the rules of the primary and respect the winner of the primary.**********************

BLITZER: But he went that the primary and basically said he wasn't going to necessarily respect the winner. Because he was making plans to run as an independent even before he lost.

LAMONT: That's correct, yup, he was having it both ways there.*****************

BLITZER: But right now, given the fact he's ahead in the polls, it would be from his perspective crazy to drop out.

LAMONT: Again, that's a decision only the senator can make. I can tell you there a lot of his friends are urging him to reconsider but I have a feeling the senator's going to stay in the race.

BLITZER: So he's appealing in Connecticut. He's appealing obviously to Democrats, to independents and I assume there are a bunch of Republicans who like him a lot since the Republican candidate barely shows up in any of these polls. So this is basically a two-man race, is that how you see it?

LAMONT: Right now it looks like a two-man race. Senator Lieberman is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, we have got the Democratic support and we are looking at moderates and independents, Wolf. And I am a guy that started up a business from scratch. I am not a career politician. I have met a payroll and I am going to go right at this race and offer people real change when I get to Washington.

BLITZER: One of your spokeswomen, Liz Dupont-Diehl said this in a statement the other day. She said, "It's no surprise that the National Republican Senate Committee has endorsed Lieberman." We checked with them and a spokesman said it's not true, they have not endorsed Lieberman.

LAMONT: I think what they did do is they said don't endorse the Republican and feel free to endorse Joe Lieberman individually if you would like to.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.